Pets shouldn't be treated as contraband.

Do unlicensed dogs have constitutional protections against being shot by police? It depends which federal judge in Michigan you ask.

A 2017 Reason investigation found narcotics raids in Detroit left a disturbing number of dead canines in their wake. Pets are considered property under the Fourth Amendment, shielding them from unlawful seizure by law enforcement. Although it takes a lot to prove a police shooting of a dog was unreasonable, cities have still paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars, more than $1 million in one instance, to settle such lawsuits.

In an effort to stymie those suits, lawyers representing Detroit have deployed a novel legal argument: If a dog is unlicensed, it counts as "contraband" under the Fourth Amendment, and its owner has no legitimate property interest in it.

In one case, Detroit compared Nikita Smith, whose three unlicensed dogs were shot by police during a marijuana raid, to a minor with an alcoholic beverage. The judge agreed. "When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property," U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled last year. (Smith is appealing that ruling.)

This year, a different federal judge came to the opposite conclusion. Nicole Motyka and her husband are suing the Detroit Police Department for shooting two of their pit bulls during a marijuana raid. Motyka's husband, a state-licensed medical marijuana caregiver, says the animals were behind a barrier in the kitchen when they were shot. Detroit argued that because one of the dogs was unlicensed, the couple had no standing to sue. But U.S District Judge Arthur Tarnow, in an opinion allowing the lawsuit to proceed, wrote that the city's argument was "misplaced."

Oral arguments in Smith's case were heard by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in April; a panel of federal judges will soon rule on whether an animal ceases to be protected from wanton state violence because of its legal status in the eyes of a city.

The answer may amount to little more than a footnote in the annals of Fourth Amendment case law, but it will be quite important to pet owners like Motyka and the dogs they love.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

If you can squash a cockroach or swat a fly, bash a snake or boil ants, trap a mouse or flush a goldfish, you should be free to kill any dog that is not another person's property, that is on your property, or that is causing a problem such as threatening a person, destroying property, or the like..

Then, you should be free to eat it.

I have never understood snowflake status for dogs, cats, horses, and other animals claimed to be entitled to special privilege.

I have never understood snowflake status for dogs, cats, horses, and other animals claimed to be entitled to special privilege.

As distinct from any other property, I agree. If your dog doesn't have a license it either needs to be under your direct supervision or securely stored on your property. Otherwise, it's on my property, unable to even possibly be ascribed to an owner, and mine to deal with as I see fit. Just as if an unregistered car, boat, or handgun showed up on my property.

Of course, for the majority of the cases in question, we are or were talking about dogs securely stored on the owner's property.

These are dogs that are on someone's private property, and the most egregious stories are the ones where the dogs were secured or behind a barrier, and thus, no real threat to the police who shot them.

"If you can squash a cockroach or swat a fly, bash a snake or boil ants, trap a mouse or flush a goldfish, you should be free to kill any dog that is not another person's property, that is on your property, or that is causing a problem such as threatening a person, destroying property, or the like.."

Damn, I just read your link (of course I didn't read the one I provided). Apparently it's just the Republican Primary he's trying to stay on the ballot for. Kansas has closed primaries, so I'd have to join a political party in order to vote for him... a real Sophie's Choice.

Did the police have any reason to think that the dogs were unlicensed at the time? If they didn't know, then that is irrelevant, and the very act of discharging a firearm on my property without the owner's permission is a serious breach of my property and safety. If they did have time to ask and find out, then they obviously were not in any immediate danger, and it was reckless and needless destruction.

Depends on the unlicensed dog. As someone who's had to do it myself, I'm totally cool with cops shooting feral or other dogs. Seems well within the purview of 'serve and protect'. Cops raiding a home, finding unlicensed animals there, and executing them is a different story.

Geez, shooting dogs that are behind a barrier? Maybe the prosecuting attorneys should get a clue and realize that police are only justified in shooting dogs when they are an *actual threat* to policeman, and not just because a policeman feels like being a dick to the "alleged" perpetrators (suspects are not guilty until proven so in a court of law). But that would mean recognizing that laws have meaning and purpose beyond simply allowing government to act as it pleases.

It's a trap.
Shooting the dogs is to get people used to firearm use during (drug?) raids, regardless of the address on the warrant, if any.
Next comes the part where the dog does not get shot, the guilty alleged druggie gets shot by mistake when they shoot at the dog.